The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the evidence which is highly reliable despite the fact-finding based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On August 18, 2014, the Defendant, at around 13:30, taken photographs against the elderly on the second floor of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Older Persons E (hereinafter “the instant elderly group”) located in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant elderly group”), on the ground that the victim F would interfere with the taking of pictures by cutting the body in his hand by his hand, making the victim’s left chest of the victim’s left chest two times, and put about about two weeks of treatment on the left top of the left part.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of the judgment, each of the statements at the court of the lower court by F, G, and H, the statement at F’s police station, and the statement at F’s police station’s discretion, was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s injury to F as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

subsection (b) of this section.

F stated on the part of her for himself, that she was under the center of her chest in the police investigation process, and stated that milching was under the lower part and upper part of milching through telephone during the prosecution investigation process, and that the court of the original instance was under the shoulder in the court of the original instance.

was stated.

In addition, in the court of the court below on the attitude and time of the defendant when he was in his own, the F stated that the defendant had been in the presence of a Kameras (the trial record No. 34 of the trial record) and that he had been in the presence of a Kameras, because he had been in the presence of a Kameras.

The statement was made (No. 40 of the trial record). F. its own.